The temptation to belong

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

[size=200]

The temptation to belong [/size]

Modern men are supposed to be very, very happy. Living in their godless world, with no particular reason to wake up or to go to sleep, they surrender to the so-called “universal” reasons to do such things: “I will wake up tomorrow because all of us are supposed to wake up tomorrow. If that is enough for my neighbours, why wouldn’t that be enough for me?”. Modern men are supposed to be very, very “free” creatures. Without pronouncing a single word which is not directly put in their mouths by their environment and their so-called “fellow men”, they are supposed to feel and act with “freedom”. The absence of “freedom” should indicate to them that they are nothing but slaves to their environments, and that would certainly be a tragedy to the modern world- “Men now know that their acts contradict their so-called "freedom. That shouldn’t have happened”.

That doesn’t mean that freedom does not exist. It does. In fact, we are free creatures, we have free will, at least at an intelectual level. But society is a bunch of creatures, it is composed by many a man, so it has to supress our free will one way or another. It begins with a necessity (to supress man’s freedom for the sake of the group) and ends with a total dependence of the environment, untill the point man can’t live without feeling "part of something, even if this something is despicable and disgusting (like modern societies generally are). So, modern man is face to face with this horrific dilemma: he wants to be free, he wants to have his individuality, but he knows that doing so he is going to destroy society itself- the same society upon which he depends.

Modern men are supposed to have built a very, very “advanced” civilization. Modern men are supposed to be proud of their “creation”- this pathetic bunch of ridiculous and unhappy creatures trying desperately to destroy their own personalities in order to “survive” in this fake “modern technological paradise”. Yes, that is another pattern of our fragmented world, almost a law- our survival depends upon the annihilation of our individualities! What is the worst, the greatest enemy humankind has ever known? [size=150]Individuality[/size]. That is the enemy, that is supposed to be our target: individualism. The only way of showing that we don’t accept and don’t like the world we unhappily live in is to keep our personalities untouchable, to keep our individualism untouchable! But that is a hard, hard task. Almost impossible. We belong to a group: we are to surrender to it if we plan to stay alive, there is no exit, with the exception of suicide.

Modern men are supposed to be better that ancient men were. If that is true, they could have built a less destructive world to live in. In fact, they (and these “they” is a very restrictive one) created a world where hypocrisy, falsehood and artificiality are some kind of pattern of life itself: we are to be hypocrite if we are to live in modern society, we are to pretend that we like it, we are to pretend that our spirits accept its “moral” conventions and “laws” if we want to be seen as really “useful” citizens". “Thou shalt be a hypocrite, thou shalt pretend!” Modern world makes it clear that it is funny to pretend. It is funny to pretend that we respect politicians, that they deserve their “authority”, it is funny to pretend that we respect the artificiallity of our day-by-day, and it is funny to realize that all this imbecility doesn’t make us happy, but unbalanced, sad, untill we can’t stand any longer and either kill ourselves or become insane.

Modern men are supposed to have found a lot of things ancient men didn’t know. Their fake “happiness”, brought by all kinds of artificial amusements and a blind search for pleasure (we should search for pleasure if we are to forget pain) are a confirmation of a truth about humankind we can no longer hide: all our acts contradict not only themselves, but also our own natures. In order to “belong” to this world, we are able to sacrifice every single trace of personality we have. We have to divide our minds, to fragment it, to put one piece of it here, one piece of it there, all in name of a illusion, of a lot of illusions: the illusion that we do belong here, that we do like this world, with all its vain pretensiousness and all its hypocritical “moral” and costumes". An we aren’t given the privilege of running from this filth: our brains are constantly brainwashed to accept all these things as natural and good, untill we have a completely “positive” vision of life: “We are happy, we are good, we are happy citizens which “help” to keep this beautiful fake world some sick men have constructed in our places “alive” and we are to be very proud of that”. That is the subliminal slogan of the modern world: a world which destroys us, which makes slaves of us, which wants desperately to destroy our free will and our individualities, and which fights to put in our minds that there is no exit from that: either we accept it as it is or we kill ourselves.

That is what modern men are supposed to be proud of.

Modern men are supposed to represent an “advance” of humanity in relation to ancient men. Another modern slogan: being a creature naturally selfish, men have always fought to keep their illusiory “civilization” untouchable. Men of nowadays are no less despicable than men of yesterdays. Their inclination to destroy, to hate and to corrupt themselves hasn’t changed because of some scientific/technological “progress”. First, this “progress” is not a work of all men: most are too conformist and idle to create anything. If this civilization we live in exists, even with all its faults, it is because some men have built it, and only they. Civilization is not a creation of humankind itself, composed in main by despicable creatures, but of a few men, who were not responsible for something which is to be admired, but were only clever enough to build something their idle fellow men could never have the courage to build. So, modern men, despite all their arrogance and their pretenses, are not even responsible for the world they live in, they are taught that their world wasn’t created by them, but that they keep it with their “work” and that their existence is utterly important. Things are not different from yesterdays, they just seem to be different. Our “laws” and “costumes” are not a product of our wills, but a product of the will of a few men, who thanks to our indolence, can rule this world as if it were their “mission”, something that they ought to do.

That is what we are to be proud of.

My conclusion about that is not simple to express in an understandable way. I have no answers to our most precious questions regarding humankind, I have no solutions to our problems, I don’t know how we could really live worthy lives in a world where we are always pretending that we are happy and proud of belong to. All I know is that men, all men, haven’t any reasons to be proud of anything. Face to face with reality, which is the same for all of us, no matter how much we try to deny it, we have no exit. We have to accept this world as it is, we have to know that all it wants is to supress our personalities untill the point when it is nothing but a dream, we have to give up our individualities in order to “belong” to something. “Look at those black guys wearing nice clothes! Wouldn’t you like to be like them? Be like them, be like them, be like them. Belong to their group. Belong to our group. But belong to something. You are to belong to something!” And there is no run from that. Things are so disgusting, that we have no excuse, no possibility of running from society/“civilization” and live freelly (acting really like we will), civilization is so sick that is puts in our mind that we have no option: liberty or life, dignity or relationship with other people, individuality or the very important sensation of belonging to something. No exit. That is where we are today, that is where our ancestors were yesterdays and that is where men of the future will be, simply because our wonderful civilization puts in our minds and will put in their minds that it has to be this way.

This is what modern men are supposed to be proud of.

Thanks for the attention,

Fabiano

2

I want to point out an observation Krishnamurti had made; he stated: to create a revolution as an individual, one must transcend the relationship(s) that man is trapped or subjected into. He also observed that freedom cannot be found simply by reacting, or acting against society, because in doing so one is still in conflict, still struggling against the society or the environment; doing so does not solve the inner conflict within the individual, rather, it only goes to perpetuate the cycle of conflict within the individual.

3

Hi Fabiano

The answer for me is INDIVIDUALITY.

You are describing an individuality of avoidance, of protecting oneself, of not allowing oneself to be open and to be touched by reality.

Forme, this cultural automatism is the direct result of this avoidance you are defining individuality by.

Individuality, as I see it, is the freedom to learn from life and act in accordance with this freedom rather then just continually reacting with the hypocrisy of civilized man.

I believe this is worth discussing. Could you describe further how you understand individuality? Is an individual one who refuses life’s subjective experiences by becoming untouchable or one who has acquired the ability to be touched without reacting negatively?

4

Nick,

thanks for taking attention at this post of mine…it took me a long time to write it and I was frustrated that only the Underground Man had answered it!

Your question:

is rather interesting and complex (there is no subject which is so complex) to be answered so quickly (I don’t have a lot of time now), so I will try to analize it and will answer you soon, ok?

5

No, I am describing what is the target of human society and human civilization: deprive one’s self from any sense of personality, in order to keep society itself. Individualism will lead us to question why we should live with other people and obbey to the laws and costumes which they obbey once we don’t respect them, and once we see no reason behind them. So, we are supposed to think that as human beings we can’t live without society- the only solution is suicide. If we are to accept that in a society our personalities have no meaning, and we will have to give it up in order to “belong” to it, our individualism becomes something which ought to be destroyed.

Explain me that.

Right, but where will you react? What will be the means for you to react? Will you establish your individuality alone in a desert or in a city, full of people like you (I mean, equally human)? And what will you learn from life but what other men have found out and decided you are to learn? That is a strong question. You are right, modern men are hypocritical, and they are hypocritical mainly because they don’t live as they are say they do, they never live as they preach, like Russel said.

Becoming untouchable is a hard task…we can keep our personalities untouchable, free from conditioning, and brainwashing, and influences we don’t want, but we are to know that the whole world is ready to destroy that and to “conditione” you (“you are to belong to our group!”). That is the meaning behind any society, it is a sacrifice you have to do in order to live in it.

You ask me to define how I understand individuality. Well, to me individuality is what distinguishes us as truly unique creatures. It is not simple biological. Every hum,an being perceives the world in a different way, with his own eyes, so, the world to me is everything-which-is-around-me, and the world to you is everything-which-is-around-you, which can be seen by a very different perspective. So, we are individuals because we all react to our world in a particular way. We are not only individuals because our biological constitution is very peculiar, but also because we develop our lives, our personalities, in a way no other person does. I understand individuality as the only thing which could put us apart from other people and from other animals, as far as they aren’t able to do anything in order to “preserve” or to “develop” their minds in this or that way, they are pretty alike vegetables, live to satisfy some biological needs, to reproduce themselves, and only that. Human beings refuse, have always refused to live just to repreoduce themselves and to satisfy biological wills, if they had done so, religion, art, science and even philosophy would have never existed. But in a civilization like men have developed, with all its fake amusements, and hypocrisy and false gods and false ideals, all people want to do is giving up their personalities (their individualities) in order to not be responsible for their acts and their lives- the existencialist “ideal”, each one being free and everyone being responsible for its own choices.

So, I think your last definition of an individual- one who has acquired the ability of being touched without reacting negatively is fine, but not perfect. I don’t think people around me can oblige me to do anything they want me to do, to the opposite, I am influenced by them but only I am to choose if this influence will change my life or not. So, I am to live with them, I am to inhabit the same world as them, but I will keep my individuality untouchable as far as I am aware of myself as an independent part of the world- a part which can be affected by this world, but who has the power to determine if it really wants to belong to it. The temptation to belong comes when we assume that out of a society, our individuality has no meaning- where will we prove our individual value? Where will we leave? Alone in a desert? There can’t be a man who is able to live completetly alone, since Aristotle we all know that man is a social animal. So, we are face to face with this dilemma: either we accept the risk of living in a society and lose the awareness of oursleves by being submitted by all his allienation tools, or we will live alone, become insane or kill ourselves.

I think I can write more on that because this subject is really interesting, so if you believe that my answer above was not complete and not satisfcatory, tell me and I try to be clearer.

Regards,

Fabiano.

6

Hi Fabiano

I agree that society as a whole puts its well being above the well being of the individual. I also agree that people often define their sense of self and self worth by societal pressures and standards.

You must admit though that there are some people defined as individuals or rebels that are admired as a minority and do have their societal effect.

There does appear to be some truth in this quote but in general most lack the charisma to be successful individuals by societal standards. Unfortunately, many people live lives completely dependent on being told what to do.

I hate to say it but Arnold is probably right. But is suicide really the only alternative? Just because fashionable thought denies our questions and objections, is suicide the best alternative?

Individualism is often defined by cultural standards. People calling themselves “artists” make a fortune conning people into believing that they are creative individuals. But what is an individual not defined by someone else?

For me, an individual is one who is master of themselves. Their life is not determined by the opinions of others but on their own beliefs. Along with these beliefs, an individual has the physical, emotional, and intellectual ability to “Live” these beliefs without the necessity of being told what to do.

Now the question becomes if a person has the ability to be an individual by societal standards, what will be their motivating factors? As you point out we are capable of all the delights of hate, destruction, and corruption as well as consideration. Obviously it can go either way. An individual could range anywhere between a Hitler and a Gandhi.

However, I believe you may be referring to something else.

Is it really our personalities that have no meaning or what they conceal? While individualism is normally seen as an aspect of our personality, is it possible that real living human individuality results from the growth of what our personality is formed around? Real individuality then wouldn’t be limited by a controlled personality but instead would have the freedom to consciously adopt whatever personality is necessary for a given situation. One would be free to talk to kings and beggars in ways acceptable to each. Such a person would no longer be victim to the normal inhibitions of personality. Life’s meaning and purpose would no longer be an aspect of society but of the realization of value of human potential in a higher context beyond the limitations of culture. The motivating factors of such an individual may begin to reflect true human values rather than its degeneration manifested by a warped personality.

Read the opening excerpt (Acornology) on the initial post and tell me if it makes any sense to you. There is no sense moving in a direction if it seems absurd to you. It does seem to offer a better alternative than suicide for those open to its implications.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=144290

7

Hi Fabiano

I just remembered one favorite of mine dealing with human potential that is sacrificed as we become “cultured” through the temptation to belong :slight_smile: Take from it what you will.

8

Hi Nick.

That’s a curious point. if you stop to think, you’ll see that these “rebels” are still trying to take some attention from society, and therefore are still guiding their lives by these “standards”. The “rebels” seem to fit society as well as the others, because they help to “justify” the acts of the “good” and “decent” ones (if my neighbour is a hippie thief, by censoring his behaviour I become a “good” citizen). In other words, his acts help me to justify my behaviour following socila pressures and be as hypocritical as my society tells me to be.

My point is that society doesn’t give us the opportunity to act differently. That’s simply the way it works.

I mean that suicide is the only alternative to the ones who really want to keep their personalitie untouchable, once living with other and following societal standards, they will have to give up this independence of character one way or another. Try to imagine your life without living with others. No try to think of a real change in human society, in human hypocrisy and lack of awareness- it is easy to see why I say that suicide is the only alternative.

Right, but my point is- Where will you live without being told what to do? Where? In a society. You’ll still have to obbey to laws, costumes and things which you’ll despise and know that lack all foundation. You’ll still have to prove to yourself that you are different from the others, but you’ll do that only if you live with the others. And in this fight, you are alone, because the social pressures will surely win your will to be what you are. You’ll surrender one way or another, to become infromed of what is happening, to become “integrated” (cause you can’t live alone), you’ll surely give up any trace of personality you may have. That’s our “choice”.

Maybe, but now tell me, what do you mean when you say that an individual can range anywhere between a Hitler and a Gandhi? Of course that will depends upon your choices. There is no definition of what we are or are not, we may chose to be different from what we are today tomorrow. But my point is exactly that we will have our ability to chose very reduced as we stay just enslaved by our need to feel part of somewhere.

I don’t know what I could add to that, Nick, although I may find it very hard for us to develop our personalities and achieve the necessary awareness of our individualities to really become so indifferent to the influence of our environment, once we have to live inside of it, and everyday we are contributing to keep it as it is , even if we don’t want to do that. You know that human hypocrisy doesn’t allow men to realize that his life has no actual meaning besides being a piece of their societal machines, and so even “create” pseudo-meanings such , well justified by religions and ideologies of all kind.

I like your topic “Acornology”, although I confess I had to read it a lot of times untill I could understand what the hell you were talking about. You are basically claimimg that modern religion and modern psychology privilege the appearance and the superficial aspects of human life in relation to what really matters. Of course, you are not wrong, although this does seem a totally religious conception of things (you’ll come soon to the dichotomy between the “true” man and the “false” man which has become the number 1 enemy of modern philosophy)- the true man being man as “how he really is” and the “false man” man how his society tells him to be. As I have stated, our liberty of character, and of personality doesn’t matter at all to the world we are supposed to belong. You yourself remember that it is hard to be optimistic, because you are the first to admit that most people prefer simply be told what to do (and what to “be”), they give importance only to their “shells” while they don’t see that they are inherently empty and fragmented and allienated. I agree that psychology doesn’t understand this problem very well and prefer simply to “solve” the problems brought by that through some “drugs” and “therapies” which make of their poor patients slaves without any sense of themselves. The solution, however , seen to be searched only for the most rare of us, as you obviously know.

It is interesting, I have understood what that means. Our society tells us that we are machines whose function is simply keep it exactly like it is (no matter if we like it or not) and we, weak enough not to realize that we are giving up our personalities and our indentities while it isn’t even complete, simply accept it and become as conformists and conditioned as all others. The eagle was as strong as the birds which it admired when they were flying in the sky, but as it was always told that it was a chicken, it lived and died as a chicken.

That’s of course an analogy refering to man’s situation before modern world and modern society. The conclusiuon of the author is probably that man forgets his divine nature and becomes reduced to a simple machine, a simple number, a simple genetic code with the ability of talking and learning. And that he does that not because that is what he really is, but what his “environment” tells him he is to be. I don’t know if I totally agree with that, but I do agree that the main objective of our world is make exactly chicken-minded people of us.

9

You should read Emile Cioran.

10

Hi Fabiano

I agree that a sense of identity or self for a great many comes from their place in family and society. In a sense, they don’t exist but their existence is a creation of others. For such people, I agree that isolation would be a horror. However, I am contending that a balanced human being maintains a sense of self, their isness, from more than just family and societal influences. They feel themselves as partofa higher reality. One can be compassionate towards the human situation but not be restricted by it if they’ve outgrown its hold.

Why must ones personality be untouchable? What makes you so sure it has any objective value worth remaining pure? If our opinion of ourselves is so fragile that it can be changed so easily, maybe this opinion is hiding something more authentic that is worthwhile being experienced.

In the Bible it is written:

What this means is that a person, in order to be free to receive from a higher perspective, must be repulsed by the unnecessary hold habitual societal psychological restriction has on them.

The compassion and love that can result from such freedom is far greater then what occurs as long as one is attached to the restrictive emotions resulting from enculturation.

Why despise it? Why not just despise our attachment to it? Society is just the lawful expression of human "being"as it is. Within this collective “being” there are many fine people. If human “being” because of certain reasons exists in a degenerated condition and so many of the ancient traditions stress the importance of “awakening” to it, wouldn’t concern and compassion be a more human response to such an objectively unfortunate circumstance?

Who must you prove yourself right to? Why is it necessary that others have to approve of our individuality? If a person truly becomes aware of the human condition and its effect on the perception of human meaning and purpose, isn’t the most important thing to treasure and nurture it ourselves no matter what others may think not having shared your awareness?

The struggle to maintain awareness is hopeless only if it is motivated as a reaction to others. But if it comes from the experience of the human condition of which we all are a part, the struggle is then only with ourselves. It helps a great deal to gradually become free of the need to justify ourselves to others. You may lose in the quantity of friends but such an attitude will increase the quality of friendship.

There is a difference between individuality defined culturally and personally. Hitler and Gandhi could both be considered individuals and their worth defined by cultural standards within time and place. for ourselves individuality can only mean becoming ourselves when choice becomes possible and we can become free to sacrifice our illusions and become open to experience what illusion conceals.

We need to feel part of something. It would be naive to think of ourselves as satisfied in isolation. the slavery comes from becoming enslaved by the unreal and feeling compelled to remain attached to it. We are part of an integrated cosmological process that we cannot comprehend as long as we battle within the domain of cultural demands based largely on imagination and rely on it to satisfy this need to be a part of something.

Maybe being a part of something wouldn’t give the repulsive impression of losing choice if what we become a part of allows for the experience of the reality imagination takes the place of and revealing the path to genuine choice.

In this way the shell of the acorn, our dominating personality, gives way as it should to the growth of the healthy kernel of life within.

You shouldn’t blindly agree. It must be verified. One must “Know Thyself.”

A person during the process of beginning to know themselves, discovers that they are indeed a “simple machine” and begin to see why St. Paul referred to himself as the wretched man as he verified his powerlessness in the face of the results of this simple machine within him.

A person then may ask if this must continue to be the case? Can I be less of a machine and reflect the humanity that I believe to be the real essence of myself in which human meaning and purpose truly reside? If the question becomes important enough, an important personal inner search begins.

11

Why “should” I read him?

12

You will see when you do.